Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of virtual private network services


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of virtual private network services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:OR concerns. There are no references as to whether these VPN providers are notable, or why these attributes are relevant. Possibly a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation as well. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't references as to whether the providers are notable just be included in the providers' own articles? Also, could you please elaborate on why the article might be a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation? On a side note, do you know where I can learn more about writing a comparison article? Thank you.--Stempelquist (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - this seems to be a case of WP: OR.Vorbee (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I understand that the article is currently based almost exclusively on primary sources (ie. the providers' websites). However, I feel that it can be appropriate to use such primary sources in the context of a comparison article. Doesn't it seem logical to visit the providers' websites in order to verify some basic facts about their products? I'm not referring to subjective claims like "our product is the best product", but claims like "our product has this particular feature" or "our product can be bought with Bitcoin." In this explanatory supplement to the WP:OR policy, it is stated that, in an article about a business, "the organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Furthermore, much of the material in the article is also attributable to reliable secondary sources, such as PC Magazine, TechRadar and PC World. Instead of deleting the article, I could add secondary sources on top of the primary sources in the wiki tables in order to establish notability. Would that be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies?--Stempelquist (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Any article on this topic will be either (A) original research or (B) only citable to affiliate marketing websites for the VPN services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why you think it will inevitably be original research? I'm aware of the many affiliate marketing websites, but there are also reliable sources such as PC Magazine, TechRadar and PC World - maybe even That One Privacy Site. Please read my Keep input above, where I argue that it's not necessarily original research when citing the providers' own websites.--Stempelquist (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * About the original research part, primary sources can indeed be used, but here they make up the majority of sources, and the criteria for determining what is bad and what is good is the very same list that this article's content and formatting is based on, so there's also a weird kind of circular sourcing going on. Likewise, Wikipedia should not be be stating what is good or bad in the first place. Eik Corell (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the primary sources are reliable in the context of this comparison, I don't think it's problematic that they make up the majority of sources. However, I agree that secondary sources are needed in order to establish notability - I'm currently working on that. As far as I can see, the policy you linked only states that an article shouldn't be based entirely on primary sources. Regarding the circular sourcing part, I fail to see where I have indirectly referenced Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate on that? In the Definitions section, I'll try to insert explanations (with sources) as to why the various columns matter in an effort to address the "Verifiability, not truth" problem.--Stempelquist (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't follow the reasons for deletion. If taking facts even from a primary source, it's not original research (say what you will about the quality of those sources, OR is irrelevant). Nomination mentions whether these VPN providers are notable... for a list comprising only VPNs which already have their own article. If they're not notable, the place to take issue with that would be at their respective articles. The attributes could indeed be changed and there may be some elements of OR in the selection of variables, but there's no shortage of comparisons of VPNs even in some reliable sources, and I entirely disagree that it's not possible to do without OR. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Original research is relevant because the article is a derivative of this chart, which is entirely based on first-party sources. It uses a lot of the same formatting: Which country, is the provider based in the 14-Eyes, Is the provider based in one of the enemy of the internet countries, etc. This is also why the article says whether something is good or bad; In the original, whether something is good or bad is determined by the author. Basically, what is being made here is a split-up copy with a few third-party sources thrown in. Eik Corell (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR isn't about other people's original research. It's about Wikipedians' original research. If it copied another source, there may be a copyright problem, but if it cites another source, it's already not OR unless the editor is adding things that are not in that source. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Article is a copy of this chart, and similarly determines determines which qualities are good or bad. Eik Corell (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is not a copy "with a few third-party sources thrown in," as you've written further above. As I have explained on the article's talk page: "Although I have used [the chart] as inspiration, I have manually updated and sourced the information, split it up into smaller sections, inserted explanatory notes and removed and added various columns. Also, I have only included "notable" services (services that have their own Wikipedia article)." Please notice that none of the first-party sources in the article have been "copied" from the chart and that the chart doesn't even refer to such sources. As I see it, two separate tables comparing VPN services will naturally look similar, and I fail to see why they should differ in layout. I agree that the Fourteen Eyes and Enemy of the Internet columns are controversial. Since the article doesn't contain a referenced explanation for them, I have been bold and removed them for now.--Stempelquist (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you saying it's a copy? I see far more information in our comparison than in that table. In fact, if you removed all of the information from that table, there would still be a lot here. There are many, many columns with very dry information. If there's language that you think is problematic in telling good vs. bad, then WP:SOFIXIT. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean by copy, if copy is the right word here, is that it uses the same layout, but also shares the methodology of the chart which is exclusively first-party sources. The way this version differentiates itself is by linking to these same first-party sources that the original author used to compile the list, along with adding some third-party sources. It's basically the same list, with more transparency into the sources used by the original author. The problem with good vs bad isn't a language thing, but a problem of verifiability, specifically WP:TRUTH. Even if the classifying of attributes as good or bad is removed, the problem with first-party sourcing persists, that's why I voted delete as other things can be fixed as you said. Eik Corell (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I should say that when I wrote the above, the page had not properly loaded and I didn't have (or didn't see) the horizontal scrollbar on the table. It looked like it only had a few columns, so I was confused why you said it was a copy. I'm not quite sold on the idea that it's either a copyright issue or a particularly bad place to start (i.e. fixable rather than beyond hope). Will wait for some other opinions and maybe take a closer look later today. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article to include three computer magazines' criteria and recommendations, and I believe this may have solved the verifiability problem. Thoughts?--Stempelquist (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites and WP:SAL. This looks like a well-structured standalone list, with each VPN having it's own article as the usual WP:CSC inclusion criterion, and the topic of VPN services being obviously notable. It is better referenced than most. Particular instances of synthesis, OR, or inadequate sourcing can be dealt with by ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Time for closure?--Stempelquist (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.